


CARE TO DEBATE THAT?  (Rebuttals to the Arguments Against The K/S Relationship)

by LeslieFish



Category: Star Trek: The Original Series
Genre: M/M, Meta
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 1977-01-01
Updated: 1977-01-01
Packaged: 2019-07-07 15:27:55
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,549
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/15911061
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/LeslieFish/pseuds/LeslieFish
Summary: Meta concerning the Kirk/Spock Relation from original Star Trek fans in 1977.





	CARE TO DEBATE THAT?  (Rebuttals to the Arguments Against The K/S Relationship)

**Author's Note:**

> [ Care to Debate That? ](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Care_to_Debate_That%3F) was a series of columns and discussions in the [Star Trek: TOS](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_TOS) [zine](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Zine) [R and R](https://fanlore.org/wiki/R_%26_R_\(Star_Trek:_TOS_zine\)). 
> 
> Some were formal essays, others were a collection of long   
> [ letters of comment ](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Letters_of_comment)  
>  regarding a certain subject. 
> 
> In 1977, Star Trek fans debated the plausibility of the Kirk/Spock relationship. In R&R issue #7, Leslie Fish responded to some of the earlier arguments against K/S. The column is reproduced here with her permission. Her “Pro” K/S section was followed by Joanna Cantor's (the publisher of R&R) “Con”  section. The essays were accompanied by cartoon drawings by Hans. 
> 
> You can read excerpts from the related essays and letters of comments at [Fanlore](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Care_to_Debate_That%3F_The_K/S_Relationship..._Con).

**CARE TO DEBATE THAT?** **(Rebuttals to the Arguments Against The K/S Relationship)**

**by Leslie Fish**

 

In R&R V there are a broadside and a bunch of letters discussing the con side of the "K/S relationship" debate. Leslie Fish replies....

Re. the "Broadside": as one of the authors whom Ms. Dodge lambasted (several times, too!) in her now-famous letter, I couldn't agree with you more. The letter took me quite by surprise, since I ran in to Ms. Dodge several times at SeKWesterCon, and she never gave any indication to me that she was displeased; if she was so upset by the con, by those two panels I was on, and by my winning the writing award (Best Fan Writer, 1977), why didn't she say so to my face? Why did she wait until long after everyone had gone back home before she sounded off? For that matter, some of the things she complained about on the panels didn't occur until very nearly the end of the session--which means that she must have sat through the whole panels. If she was so shocked and disgusted by the content, why didn't she just get up and leave? Nobody forced her to stay, or even attend; those panels were clearly labeled as to content, well in advance, and she was in no way tricked into observing something objectionable. She had plenty of warning. It strikes me as faintly hypocritical of Ms. Dodge to sit there muttering "Filth! Filth!" while avidly taking notes on everything.

Re. "Care to Debate That?" I'd love to. What a joy it is to see people debating the K/S relationship on rational grounds, for a change, instead of hysterically waving Bible quotes. I'm glad to see such well taken points on this subject, and would be honored to deal with them.

 **First off, to Jo** : in what way would adding a sexual dimension to an already-existing relationship cause 'fundamental changes'?  How would it automatically abrogate the _'distance that allows each to be himself'?_ Why should we assume that sex would change their characters, make them want to change each other, break all of their _'personal distance,'_ and generally make them act differently? I believe it was Socrates who said that a lover does not wish to change his beloved, and Shakespeare pointed out that _'love is not love which laters when it alteration finds.'_ Both of them meant love with a sexual content. Why should we assume, then, that sex would make such ferocious changes in K  & S's personalities and relationship? Contrary to common religious opinion, sex is _not_ demonic possession, nor a brain tumor, nor a severe psychosis, nor a form of brainwashing--which are the only things known (or suspected} that can make such profound personality changes. Now it's true that in our present society (and note that this is not true of _all_ societies, even today) we have a strong "sex-negative" attitude. That is, we regard sex with fear and fascination, see it as dangerous and entrapping, and assume it has all sorts of powers and perils that aren't really there. For example, we believe that sex makes people wildly jealous and possessive (one gang of educated fools, the Sociobiologists, have built a whole theory of evolution on that); but there are plenty of people--like the Polynesians or the Eskimos--who are quite without sexual jealousy or possessiveness. There's no reason ·to believe that people three centuries from now, living in an interplanetary society with contact between hundreds (if not thousands) of cultures, will have the same sex-fearing ideas that we do. There's no reason to think that our heroes would believe that sex would make _'fundamental changes'_ in their personalities or relationship--much less that they would act accordingly.

 **Ditto to Lucy:** what evidence is there that sex and love are totally different and separate things? Observing behavior in other human and animal societies one gets the picture that "love" and "lust" are just two ends of a single scale. We might as well call the  scale "affection," for lack of a better word. Yes, it's possible to enjoy going to bed with someone whom you otherwise can't stand, and it's equally possible to love someone whom you can't bear to touch, hut these tend to be exceptions to the rule; it's much more common to find "love" and "lust" mixed, in varying degrees. In fact, the more human and animal behavior one studies, the more one gets the impression that the one feeling is _supposed_ to cause the other; Nature expects us to love what we make love to, and vice-versa. Now bear in mind that not all degrees of sexual feeling involve clashing genitals; in fact, until you get toward the far end of the scale, most sexual feeling involves nothing more than taking pleasure in touching or being touched. For example, there’s some degree of sexual feeling involved when you pet your cat; you enjoy the feel of the sleek fur, and the cat enjoys being petted--and will tell you so, with a shameless purrrrrrr. It's physically impossible to have an affair with a house-cat, but some degree of sexual feeling is definitely there. So really, where do we draw the line? At what point do we say: "this is sexual" and "that is innocent"? Since both our heroes (much as Spock tries to repress it) tend to express their feelings physically, one could say  that there's already a sexual component in their affection for each other; the only relevant question, then, is how far it goes. So, is there anything 'sexual' between, say, Starsky and Hutch? I'd say there is; they like to hug each other sometimes--and what's wrong with that? Again, we're getting back to the sex-fearing attitudes of our present culture. To our present way of thinking, to even take notice of the sexual component in any affectionate relationship that isn't "legitimate" ( _i.e.,_ between heterosexual couples, preferably married, in the missionary position) does not strengthen or glorify the relationship, but only 'dirties' it. This says nothing about the nature of love--or sex--among human beings. It does say a helluva lot about our barbarous attitudes. I can't believe that an advanced interplanetary society would be as backward in its attitudes as this. I claim that the relationship shown in the aired ST episodes is already sexual to some degree; to what exact degree (to bed or not to bed) is wide open to speculation.

 **To Mary:** once again, why would sex necessarily interfere with Kirk's job? Certainly he would "worry about the presence of a lover"--but there is no reason to think he'd let that stop him from doing his job and doing it well; he isn't the sort to let _any_ personal feelings interfere with that. Note that not even Elaan-of-Troyos' aphrodisiac tears, nor Omicron Ceti 4's paradise spores, nor Edith Keeler's life could make him give up the Enterprise; he wouldn't do that for Spock either, no matter what he felt for him. As for the time-factor involved, remember that time passes between the aired episodes; we just get to see the exciting stuff, not the dull days when nothing happens. Kirk would have enough time between noteworthy stardates to catch up on paperwork, sleep, and private R &R. Can we really be sure that "it would never occur to a Vulcan to be a homosexual"--especially when it _does_ occur to every known species of mammal, several species of birds, some reptiles and even a few fish?  I can think of a few good reason; why it would be a logical possibility for Spock: a) Spock has no bondmate now, and must have one or die in his next pon farr; b) even if  another engagement could be arranged on Vulcan, there's no guarantee that the Enterprise will be within reach at the time; c) Kirk has mindlinked with Spock more often than anyone else, they know each others' minds pretty well by now, and Spock knows that he can trust Kirk with this frightening and vulnerable part of his nature; d) Kirk has the physical strength to survive sexual activity with a Vulcan. Yes, I've read Connie Faddis' beautiful "None There Embrace" and admit that her argument is a good one, but I also maintain that if a fragile little woman like Amanda could survive a big, heavy Vulcan like Sarek and come up smiling--for more than 40 years-- then a big, strong, physically tough man like Kirk could survive Sarek's considerably skinnier and smaller son. A human rectum can take a surprising amount of abuse, as any large-hospital proctologist can tell you. Besides., there's always the possibility (used by Lora Rene in "Speculation" and Gayle Feyrer in "Desert Heat") of simply tying the Vulcan to the bed. So much for K/S and pon farr; outside of pon farr, it's still open to speculation. Of course a Vulcan might see any emotional-physical affection as "in bad taste," but Spock is already emotionally involved with Kirk to a most indecorous degree (notice is reactions in "Devil in the Dark"), and so might consider that he has little to lose in completing his impropriety. Then again, being bound to a rigid fertility cycle, Vulcans might not consider mating outside pon farr to be "real" mating at all; they might think of it as merely a minor lapse of manners. You'd be surprised how many societies have to taboos on non-fertile sex; ours seems to be an exception, and ours may be an aberration.

 **To Vivian:** are we sure· that it's sex that Vulcans "do not discuss, even among ourselves"? Or is it the aggressive madness of pon farr? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. Remember that in "The Cloudminders" Spock was willing to explain to a hopeful Droxine that he couldn't oblige her because it was. out of season for him. Many Trekfen have chosen simply to ignore that scene, but once you start ignoring sections of the aired episodes, where do you stop? I take that to mean that Vulcans are not particularly reticent about sex per se--just about their peculiar violent madness that accompanies male fertility. As to the problem of the mind-link, there's no reason to believe that a permanent bonding is required. Spock was able to dissolve his bond to T'Pring with no trouble--a bond of 40 years standing, though admittedly unconsummated. He managed well enough with Zarabeth and Leila (why do you think he changed into that jumpsuit?) without any permanent bonding. There's no reason to think that a bonding is necessary for mating--only that it's customary. I can't see Kirk accepting a permanent exclusive bond with Spock, and it's very unlikely that Spock would try to make him accept one, but dealing with that problem would make an interesting story--and I've seen a few.  Spock and McCoy? It's not impossible, but I think it's less likely. Spock is a little more cautious around McCoy than he is with Kirk, possibly even a trifle afraid of him; McCoy's sharp blue eyes see a little too deep for comfort, and he's a lot more snappish than Kirk is. McCoy would make a great friend, but an awfully thorny lover.

 **To Susan:** military regulations against homosexuality are, like the equally ancient rules against 'fraternizing' between officers and enlisteds, more honored in the breech than in the observance, as a quick look at any public-john wall in Newport News will show you. I have sat in at more than one EM's committee on Gay Rights in the Military, and the tales I heard were amazing; general consensus is that the only effect of these rules is to make lovers observe some discretion and to prevent officers from sexually bullying lower-ranking personnel. They certainly don't stop the _'fraternizing'_! Now we've seen on the aired episodes that two officers on the same ship can marry if they want ("Balance of Terror"), regardless of rank difference, so it's unlikely that non-marrying affairs would be considered much more dangerous to morale. The chief hazard to morale of inter-crew affairs is favoritism, obviously, but favoritism can happen for many more reasons than sexual ones, and is almost always treated as a separate offense. Kirk and Spock are too good at their jobs, career Starfleet officers, to lapse into favoritism for any reason--though each has taken near illegal risks for each other ("Amok Time," "Tholian Web") on rare occasions. Besides, there are hints a-plenty that Kirk has tom-catted around the ship's female personnel more than a little, and if he didn't report himself for that, why do so for an affair with a discreet and trustworthy friend? I've seen several stories postulating an affair between Kirk and Uhura, and nobody's suggested that Uhura transfer off for that; why should it be any different for Spock?

 **To Bev:** (hello again) Agreed that Kirk is something of a Puritanical culture chauvinist, he's still too open-minded to be a cultural (or sexual) bigot; his usual reaction to shockingly new social ideas is to jump back, gulp a few times, think for a minute, and then cautiously approach again. Probably his reactions to the idea of being Spock's lover would follow the same pattern. As to whether "real" male homosexuals prefer to choose their partners on the basis of looks alone, don't men always _say_ they're interested primarily in looks?  How many completely heterosexual men you know have an ideal mate in mind--usually blonde, blue-eyed, hour-glass-shaped--and then wind up silly in love with someone who looks completely different (say, a flat-chested, brown-eyed brunette) who just happened to tug their heartstrings the right way?  I'm convinced that men are just as romantic, vain, gossipy, and nervous about· their sex-lives as women are supposed to be. What all this boils down to is that Kirk could very well find himself attracted to Spock---probably to his dismay, at first, after which he'd calm down and try to decide what to do about it. Spock is indeed another matter; it's not that homosexual behavior is impossible for him--no more than it is for all known human societies and most animals--it's a question of _under what circumstances_ he1d have to deal with such feelings. Now he does love Kirk (I don't think there's any argument there), and he's ashamed of it (as he admitted in "Naked Time") but he can't or won't stop loving. Furthermore, he was willing to reveal that feeling in front of "all of Vulcan in one package," even to beg for Kirk's life, right through the plak tow--something which visibly shocked T'Pau. Now Vulcans have a curious attitude toward motivations; they seem to consider actions themselves neutral--"good" if motivated by logic, and "bad" if motivated by emotion. The important factor is not the action, but the thought behind it. This seems to apply to sex, too. Note how  coolly Spock seduced the Romulan commander in "Enterprise Incident," and apparently felt no shame for it until the Romulan was accidentally captured. Vulcan culture seems. to have reached a point where the activity is less important than its motivation--and if this is the case, then Spock has already become _persona non grata_ on Vulcan for publicly admitting to feeling. Since he's already committed the really important part of the misdeed, there isn't much reason for him to refrain from the rest of it. There may well be a Vulcan equivalent to the Earth saying, "might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb." There is, as I mentioned earlier ·some sexual content already in his love for Kirk--as shown by his shy, hesitant but persistent desire to reach toward Kirk, touch him,. hold and protect him with his body--and again, the only question is   how far it goes. Perhaps Spock would be content to spend the rest of his days at Kirk's side, offering help and protection, getting no further physical/emotional reward than an occasional warm smile or a held hand--and perhaps not. Of course, if such desires did get to the point where Spock couldn't repress or ignore them, he'd have a terrible time dealing with them; he seems to have no method of dealing with emotions _except_ repressing them, poor thing!  No, he probably wouldn't know how to communicate his distress, but both Kirk and McCoy have become pretty good Spock-readers, and they'd guess that something was wrong. Eventually one or the other--probably Kirk--would get the whole story out of him; it couldn't be more difficult than getting Spock to explain about pon farr. As to whether or not Vulcan is "a determinedly anti-sexual culture" that would consider a same-sex affair as "a monstrous perversion"    why should such a peculiarly Puritanical attitude, which is uncommon enough among human societies, show up among a species with a different sexual pattern? First, why should a determinedly logical people hate and fear their sexuality? They might dislike the attendant emotionalism, irrationality and aggressive ness, but that doesn't automatically mean they'd despise sex itself. Second, in what way is homosexual behavior--or, for that matter, any form of non-fertile mating, "anti-survival"? (Especially in a species that's infertile most of the time!) An unbiased ethologist can't help noticing that among higher animals sexual behavior is used for many more purposes than just breeding; most often, it's used to neutralize aggression (only humans and certain insects harm their sex-partners)--and a civilization determined to avoid aggression might find this very useful. For all we know, Vulcans might very well _encourage_ homosexual behavior for males between pon farrs, in order to preclude fights! For all we know, Spock's family and community might be delighted (and more than a little relieved) if he were to obtain such a respectable lover as Kirk! Perhaps (intriguing thought) the "closest friends" who accompany the male at his kah-li-fee are actual or prospective off-season lovers, brought up for the tribe's formal inspection. Weird as all this sounds, it's every bit as logical, and a good deal more healthy for the individual and the society, as the baby making-or-nothing model.

One theme that I see coming up over and over again in most of the "con" arguments is the assumption that sexuality is dangerous, blind, irrational, overwhelming, cruel, frightening, and essentially "dirty"--something that has to he kept carefully within bounds, led out only when necessary for breeding, "True Love,"   duty, survival, or some other absolutely-essential-and-unavoidable reason. Where in hell did we ever pick up this idea?! What makes us think that our natural instincts, shaped by millions of years of evolution toward the goal of keeping us alive, are somehow _anti-survival_ all of a sudden? Why in the name of reason should Nature have designed us to be at war with ourselves? There's no logic in that! There's even less logic in assuming that other intelligent beings must automatically be tied in the same emotional knots that we are. It could very well be that by insisting that Vulcans can't/don't/wouldn't practice homosexual behavior we are committing the cardinal error of cultural chauvinism---making Vulcans too human/American/20th-century, too much like ourselves and not nearly alien enough.

A last side-note about pon farr: something about the Kah-li-fee strikes me as unnatural in the extreme. Consider  any creature that instinctively battles to the death at every mating time will extinct itself in short order. Go figure it out on the calculator.  Also, all up and down the animal kingdom one can find examples of mating battles, but they're almost _never_ fatal. Third odd fact: courtship rituals--human and animal--consist of only two things 1) enticer displaying how pretty he/she is and what a great lover he/she would be, or 2) courter displaying what a good provider he/she is and how much food he/she can offer. Fourth: Vulcans admit that they were once predators, carnivores, but are now strict vegetarians--and it's generally assumed that Vulcans descended from cat-like creatures, rather than apes. Fifth: as a cat-breeder myself, I've noticed that when cats don't get enough fresh meat, the first sign of trouble is that their fertility goes 'way down. Put ‘em together, and up comes a curious theory. What if the original purpose of the plak tow frenzy was not to kill rival males, but to enable the male to kill large game--which he would then offer to  any and all available females as part of the courtship ritual. If the female accepted the food, she accepted the male. The post-battle cooling-off period allowed time for both parties to eat and ingest the wedding-feast, thus increasing the likelihood of fertility, after which the male would warm to his task again and the female would be happy to comply. So why should Vulcan males have left off killing big game and started killing each other in their mating-battles? The most likely answer is that they started running short of big game, but the killing instinct remained. Needless to say, this wouldn't help raise the population any.... Anyway, it would make a good story idea, if anybody wants to take it and run with it.

\-- Leslie Fish


End file.
